AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AB	
x	RECORD  REVIEW

o,'<'f,t\tgf  NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJZA TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x

x
x x
x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER

1	ORDER APPOINTING  THE BOARD

AOl.13 A92.37 A94.05

A66.00	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

19 Aug 2003

FD-2003-00238

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00238	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change his reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board  but declined to exercise this right.

The  attached  brief  contains  available  pertinent  data  on the  applicant  and  the  factors  leading  to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change of reason and authority for the discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided  by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issue. Applicant was discharged for drug abuse as a result of a positive urinalysis for the metabolites of marijuana at twice the Department of Defense cut-off, which he now contends was a departure from his normal behavior.  The records indicated the applicant also had a Letter of Reprimand for failure to go.
At the time of the discharge, member submitted matters indicating he was inadvertently involved when  in the company of civilian friends, while they were smoking in the confines of a closed car over a 2-hour period.  Member claimed he was the victim of passive inhalation.  The Legal Review noted however
that 21 days had elapsed from the date member said he was with his friends and the date he provided the urine sample.  According to the Legal Review, the fact that the sample was positive after that period of time would indicate chronic use rather than passive inhalation.  The Board concluded member's
apparent misconduct was incompatible with Air Force standards and an extremely significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  Member would have been well aware of the Air  Force's zero tolerance policy for drug abuse.  For the period of service under review, his misconduct was sufficient reason for receiving a general discharge.

While the Board commends applicant on his desire to return to military service, and is sympathetic to the impact a General discharge has on his reenlistment code, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants an upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief